Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)
from edward snowden has gone on to what anyone realize beyond the wiretapping of angela merkel's personal cell phone. it's hard to believe a terrorist would call her up and say i'm a terrorist and just that i would let you know we are going to blow up a building. doesn't sound very likely that they should be doing that. at least that's my opinion. >> host: what do you make of the revolution's overall but the work the nsa is doing and how that either helps or contributes to what the work at the fbi and the cia do? >> guest: well, the fbi is an important agency obviously. it seemed to miss revelations that they've gone beyond what anyone suspected they could be doing. i personally don't think the correction of what they call metadata, which is like every phone call, you know, is not overheard. that seems to me to be going on what his message very. if they have a bad guy, they can go to the foreign intelligence surveillance court and put on for a warrant and they'll get a warrant in almost every case. to wiretap that person. they don't need to know that i was talking to my brother
. about a month later, edward snowden began releasing real elevations about massive surveillance. in this kicked off a healthy public debate about how we balance privacy and security. and as you've heard from greg, it's our mission to try to improve the quality of public policy decision making which is an important discussion to be had. that's why we brought together the panel. people have different views. while everyone here has deep expertise in experience with part of it. we're hoping to have ab open discussion about it. in will be some thing they'll be unable to question. unable to an and just because of the situation. but we're going try to guide the discussion over a few topics today. we're going to start can with try to understand what works in intelligence and security. why do we feel we need to put it in place. we're going turn to what are the increased risk of mass collection of information on the public. and finally, turn to what is the -- what do the implications of this an how we implement foreign policy. with that sort of an overarching on the topic i like to see us
by not allowing edward snowden to steal the documents that he stole from our country. "the guardian," is operating in its own best interest. they have inherited stolen goods, stolen information, and ind to be held accountable informing the world of these instances. what was stolen, we have tried as best we can to figure out what all he does have, but we are really at the mercy of "the guardian" as to how they roll the revelations out and how they spin them. it is a mostly inaccurate portrayal of that data. do you and the intelligence communities know exactly what he has? guest: no, he could have some stuff that we are not aware of. host: do you have an idea a echo -- id a? guest: -- idea? guest: we do in some instances, but not everything. host: they still cannot answer that question? guest: not definitively. no one can answer that question. host: how is it that that is not possible? there is a lot of it that he took over a long. of time. host: so, there is more to come? guest: i do not know, in infinite wisdom. host: kevin on twitter asks -- guest: you're caller earlier talked about the boston bo
reason members of congress are questioning the quality of the background checks. the edward snowden case of course raises many of the same questions so have wikileaks disclosures by private bradley manning. just yesterday we learned the department of justice has joined a lawsuit against a company called united states investigations and services commonly known as uses. this is a company that performs about 45% of the background investigations that are contracted out by the office of personnel management. according to this lawsuit they engaged in a our primary purpose is to learn what we are doing right in the security process and do more of that while also learning how we can improve it. we have many questions to ask and here are some of them. are we looking at the right risk factors and incentives identify people who should not be trusted with clearance or who could do serious harm to our government and our country? what important information did that round checks miss in the current system which relies heavily on self reporting by the individuals applying for clarence? was a clearance g
't just hire former nsa staffers saying, hey, we have oversight now. edward snowden even. who apparently is making noise about testifying before congress via skype which would be interesting. >> really? all right, greg, we heard some sort of concerns from jim and ross about need for transparency and oversight. what's your reaction? >> oversight failed. that's the bottom line. that's what we learned from the disclosures. all the things carrie talked about, all mechanisms put in place to protect privacy, oversight tailed. -- failed. now we have to figure out a way to reconstruct them. when you sthart to think about how to reconstruct oversight and how to make it work, think about the causes of the failure. one of the big causes of the failure was intelligence officials repeatedly misled congress. they did it at open hearings, and whether it was behind the scenes as well, we don't know, but there was misleading statements. they misled the public about what was going on. they even misled the court that's supposed to be deciding whether they can do what they want to do and what they have. doi
. with wicki leaks and edward snowden spilling our beans every day what's happening on the exchanges is the best-kept secret in washington, d.c. the national security agency could learn something from secretary sebelius. today i will ask consent to approve a six-page bill i introduced yesterday to require the the administration to answer these questions every week. secretary sebelius is not responsible for enacting obamacare, but she has been responsible for three and a half years for implementing it. now many americans have only a few weeks to purchase new insurance or be without health insurance. to expect the secretary to correct in a few weeks what she's not been able to do in three and a half years is unrealistic. mr. president, it's time for the president to ask the secretary of health and human services to resign. i thank the president and i yield the floor. mr. hatch: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. hatch: during debate over debt limit increase in 2009 -- 2006, then-senator obama stated that -- quote -- "the fact that we are here today to deba
that we have would not necessarily know that level of detail. >> so was edward snowden a trader? >> you're asking me? absolutely. >> is that your opinion? >> absolutely. >> yes ma'am. >> certainly not with treason very he has been charged with leaking and compromising the integrity of the intelligence system. >> in your opinion, your personal opinion. >> unfortunately with the case involved as a justice official i cannot do that with professional responsibility. >> does the white house consider mr. snowden a trader? >> when you say the white house collectively i think most people feel that he has done the great disservice to the country. >> i yelled back. >> i want to make sure i answered them just to make sure i hit those rate? you did ask some constitutional questions spiffy only one i might add to is the foreigners were in the united states to have certain constitutional rights that would be the only amendment to what general alexander said. >> maybe you could elaborate what those instances would be and what rights they could have. >> we will get better permission to use the back i y
and edward snowden, are we at a crisis point with the credibility and integrity of the security clearance process? what should give us any faith in the current system? >> i appreciate the question, and i certainly understand it based on the reports that have appeared. as you mentioned, senator, on tuesday afternoon a full claims act complaint was unsealed, and it contains very serious allegations of contract fraud against usis, arising out of conduct that took place in 2010 and 2011. we have been aware of these allegations and since the complaint was filed in july of 2011 we have been working closely with d.o.j. and i.g. to implement changes that would address the contract fraud and ensure it would not continue. let me explain to you what we understand the allegations to be. we understand the allegations to be that the contractors have an obligation under the contract to conduct their own quality reviews of investigations. once they finish their quality reviews, they send the product to o.p.m. and we conduct our own quality reviews of the investigation. what the allegation is here is that
of all the questions that have been raised in this includes that of edward snowden and what should give us any faith in this current history. >> i appreciate the question. and i certainly understand it based upon the reports and as you mentioned, senator, he contained very serious allegations of contract fraud arising out of 2010 and 2011 and we have been aware of these allegations since the complaint was filed in july 2011 and have been working closely with the doj to implement changes that would address this nature would not continue in this includes what the allegations could be. we understand that the contractors have an obligation to conduct their own investigations. in this includes our own quality reviews of the investigations and what the allegation is here is to move cases more quickly and that is a real problem, obviously with the allegations that are substantiated because this includes quality review and it's a real problem because we rely upon their quality reviews in order for us to be able to move the investigation along more quickly and we like them to capture the issue a
and what edward snowden has done? >> guest: um, i believe in whistleblowers. i mean, i do think that whistleblowers perform a public service, especially when there's corruption in government or pharmaceuticals or harming people and they step forward. i'm mixed on snowden. i am mixed. i do believe that there's certain secrets that you have to keep for the security of our country, and perhaps i've changed a little bit on that since 9/11. but i don't know quite what to make on the snowden thing. parts of it, parts of his disclosures i think have gotten us into a national debate and conversation that's constructive and good. and i don't know about the rest. i'm sorry to -- i'm not copping out, i just simply haven't come down hard on one side or the other. >> host: about 30 minutes left in our interview with kitty kelley, this month's "in depth" guest on booktv. phil in north hollywood, california, good afternoon. >> caller: hi there, peter. really love your show. i always get some new insight from writers that i've known or just discovered. ms. kelley, just curious to know with all
assessment that edward snowden have access to raw material in the business record database. why is that the case? i think i would make the case that the current program is one of the most highly read debated programs in the federal government today, and i think that goes to the benefit of folks have privacy concerns or interest in the protection of such data. so what do i mean with its highly rated program? for one, pursuant to the order, but it has to be kept segregated from all other types of raw intelligence your number two, the purpose of the program is purely for characters and purposes the data can't be used for other, for other purposes as we have just been discussing might be the case, in other circumstances. three, the program is reauthorized every 90 days by the foreign intelligence surveillance court. we at nsa together with justice report to fisk every 30 days on use of the data. the program is audited every 90 days by the department of justice. pursuant to the court order, only 22 senior officials may approve wary into the data and those queries have to be based on
is not the only reason members of congress are questioning the quality of the background checks. the edward snoweden case raises many of the -- snowden case raises many of the questions. and so does the wiki leaks. just yesterday we learned that the department of justice has joined a lawsuit against a company called united states investigations services, commonly known as usis. this is a company that formed about 45% of the background investigations that are contracted out by the office of personnel management. according to this lawsuit, usis engaged in a practice that company insiders referred to as dumping. some refer to as flushing. under this alleged scam they would send investigations back to the office of personnel management even though they had not gone through the full review process. through this dumping, usis maximized its profits. many national security experts have long argued the security clearance process is antiquated and in need of modernization. given recent events i think we have to ask whether the system is fundamentally flawed. we should also be mindful for many years b
Search Results 0 to 12 of about 13 (some duplicates have been removed)